Members of Congress are invited to testify before appropriations committees
before the markup of funding bills gets underway. On April 6, House
Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) testified before
the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Science, State, Justice and
Commerce. Selections from his remarks follow. The entire testimony may
be viewed at http://www.house.gov/science/press/speeches/4.6.06sb.pdf
"The Science Committee enjoys an outstanding working relationship
with this Subcommittee at both the Member and the staff levels on both
sides of the aisle, and we do not take that relationship for granted.
So thank you for your openness and for the leadership you have shown
on science issues."
"I wanted to testify this year because of the surpassing importance
of the President's American Competitiveness Initiative, which Chairman
Wolf [R-VA], Dr. Ehlers [R-MI] and I have been advocating for a long
"I know we all agree on the importance of investing in science.
But that agreement won't mean much unless it's backed up with the dollars
that only you can provide. So I urge you to fully fund the President's
request for research at the National Science Foundation (NSF) and for
the laboratory and construction accounts at the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST). [This appropriations subcommittee does
not fund DOE.]
"We have to get these agencies, which have lost ground in recent
years, on the path to doubling in at least 10 years. Anything less than
full funding this year will make that doubling highly unlikely, both
politically and fiscally. So, please, let's make the investments now
we need to protect our nation's future. We will do anything we can to
help you keep that funding through the entire appropriations process.
"While the American Competitiveness Initiative is my top priority,
I do, of course have other concerns as Science Chairman. I urge you
also to fully fund the President's requests for the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA), which are really the bare minimum needed
for these agencies to carry out their important duties.
"If you can find any additional funds, I would add money to the
President's request in the following priority order.
"First priority is the Education and Human Resources Directorate
at NSF. NSF plays a vital role in science and math education at all
levels, but the FY07 proposal is less than the Directorate received
"A close second is funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership
Program (MEP) at NIST. . . . .the proposed budget cuts funding by more
than half without any explanation of how the MEP centers would be able
to survive with such a cut.
"A close third as a priority is the Science Mission Directorate
at NASA. The FY07 budget provides sharply reduced funding for science
compared to earlier projections. This will sideline important scientific
work that not only would increase human knowledge, but that would require
the development of technology that could promote U.S. security and competitiveness.
Following the recommendations of the scientific community, we urge you,
at a minimum, to restore funding for the Research and Analysis programs
in the Directorate and to permit additional smaller missions to be launched.
Those items are more of a priority than any flagship science mission.
"A fourth priority is the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate
at NASA. I share your support for NASA's aeronautics programs. While
NASA is revamping its aeronautics programs a major increase in funding
may not be necessary. But the U.S. must maintain its leadership in aerospace
and the projected cuts over the next five years are too severe.
"My fifth priority is the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) at
NIST. At a time when the Augustine Report is calling for additional
research programs to spur U.S. industrial competitiveness, we should
not be dismantling a proven program that serves that goal.
"Finally, let me make clear that I do not think it is a priority
to add funding above the request to the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV)
program at NASA. I support the President's Vision for Space Exploration,
but I do not see any great advantage to be gained from launching the
CEV in 2012 rather than 2014. Too many other items are of greater concern.
"No one has described any actual threat posed by the additional
two-year gap - even taking into account Chinese space efforts - and
the U.S. should be able to maintain an adequate aerospace workforce
as long as it is clear that work on the CEV is proceeding according
to schedule. Our priorities should not be skewed by emotional appeals."